JK 468 
.P76M36 


1990 


' *>>; • cp?a^ • • • v^x* • • ;>k^;° • 1 v 


> V^V ^ ^ 

■* * * <£► - ’ • - 

°o 

'. «b^ . 

* ,0*/> <* -r “ -in 

r o \ 'A-^.* ^ “V * 

4? V'»«»’ / . q,*» 

‘ ‘in r /iSkfe *«, 


’b-f w ° 

- *%. ”11|K? ^ ’. 

•$* O A*) J * 9 V O ^ 

•» •>“.« ^V ono ’ ^ * *.\*" % 

/ ^ v \ \fp.- /\ %^p* *: 

/° • ‘V c »-=..% 4 • • >4* ■■ ■ •/v aV> ‘ i / ^ ^ ” 54 ^ r - ^ 

W. O * * O 4 * 

£ * ^Ni\\vr : iv <r .. -?v f> 



t> .4* £ + -<r H 

>> * 

A*, ./» ^“'JkC^t 5 >* ^ 

* - foS* oHo9 &' * °* V* 91 

A***, - 


* O ^ - N . . 

.1 « o,°'l^, i ’*n * Jp 

%% 4 ' 

IS 

o 



0 .. ^ .,., c . w.y ;^;.■ 

°jf Ml; V°:9$: V filli V°Sttf: °&? M 

> ^ * w; a o o rs A. - 

c«0j. V^ V ° KO ° ^ ^ *0 "3NO’ ° 

vW^\ A^;.'.% ” ,vV< 

- v^y 



o. ‘ 


«r t, 


O’n C,' 

'VnCT 1 


!> “°’ >%, . .,\'*n ■'/, . . r V^ 0 ’ S>^’ * o.°^ •’■'■■ *y*° . * - ^ ' ONO ’ 

■o. <4 4 :- ^ ^ , v y 

Cv ^ rA^fir An o <V> /C*> ^ tf'$hf {x <=> .vK .-t> 

S * 

4 


,' * >V:_:,'yyy 0 * 1 //«.,V • • '>\« »•♦:%■ 

v* iff&\ 



Kt. 41 

y><<^ ^ 


« x' 




<0^ 

*y v (/ v w» ^> m\\w 

> O ^*1 J» ^NKV^ 


v O’ ^ 

❖ o ^ 

0 >f ^/- ? 1 1 0 ^ > ’/, 

o Ca c s ,-^nv^ ^ ^ 

o * 




o 


A v; x, o 
> ‘V ^ 0 




4 -" 


71 w v*o^ ^ov^ *|f^; v*c? 


<5 ^ ♦ 

.>/»-»’: ■ s<,. .,v*.n . 4 °;.. V o “°’V4’ * °»\ v ” 
/ 4?\ WJ J"* 



> n rO 

°<b 9 i T * A « * - .. ^ 

*#fll4 fWifn” W *>o* ?^||i* ■’o-y .p^; 

o4 o^rO ^j> <jy o_ <o 4i> o 


'ONO 1 \ < v r ^' < 


*P N'^-» ^ 

4. VfAiV 

a X * MrM * 0 ,W| ^ * |fcf " <V*<4 

o.v n>v ^ ^4/4^ -v <v 4 1 ° a/^vVF * jV % Vf^i^ 4 4 y V' 

:«•?•«.>% * ’ ’ ’■ ‘>4*;*'.;V; '»-y ' 

4 o ^ * Mmz> * % o • — - - ‘ * v -^- 

» 4v * t 






\o ^ 



3v* ° n °°" <?\t - 0^5 ^ 

» a^ >j J'a o Wl)Js& 4 4^ 

.■^ Ay ^h. ^ ^ ^ 
































































































A 7 


THE MANAGEMENT C IpSTofcoSc^^ 
ELECTRONIC RECORDS ?am 
IN THE 1990’S \ ^ 



A Report of a Conference 
Held June 21-23, 1989, Easton, MD 


NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICE OF RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 
WASHINGTON, DC 
AUGUST 1990 











THE MANAGEMENT OF 
ELECTRONIC RECORDS 
IN THE 1990’S 



A Report of a Conference 
Held June 21-23, 1989, Easton, MD 


NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 
OFFICE OF RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 
WASHINGTON, DC 
AUGUST 1990 




The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990'$ 


Table of Contents 


Executive Summary.1 

Summary of Recommendations.2 

Conference Report.5 

The Planning Process.5 

General Sessions.7 

Welcome.7 

The Technological Future .8 

The Managerial Future .9 

The Working Groups .11 

Working Group 1: Organizational and Individual Responsibilities.12 

Working Group 2: Corporate Information Management.14 

Working Group 3: Managing Electronic Records in the 

Office Environment.16 

Working Group 4: Legal and Security Issues .18 

Working Group 5: Records Management and the Design 

and Implementation of Electronic Information Systems .19 

Working Group 6: Information Collection and Dissemination.21 

Recommendations to the President’s Council on Management 
Improvement.23 

Summary of Progress and Planned Actions.29 

Actions Begun .29 

Planned Actions .30 

Appendix: Conference Participants.33 


iii 


Table of Contents 


















































































































The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990'$ 


Executive Summary 


In June 1989 a 3-day conference, convened by the National Archives, con¬ 
sidered the challenges posed by the increasing use of electronic media to 
store Federal records. Representatives from all three branches of govern¬ 
ment and the private sector met to develop a series of recommendations for 
the management of electronic records in the Federal Government. After in¬ 
troductory sessions the conference broke into six working groups: 

• Organizational and Individual Responsibilities 

• Corporate Information Management - Mission Information Systems 

• Managing Electronic records in the Office Environment 

• Legal and Security Issues 

• Records Management and the Design and Implementation of Electronic 
Information Systems 

• Collection and Dissemination of Information 

At the conclusion of the conference, the recommendations of the working 
groups were presented. There were several dominant themes among these 
recommendations including the need to for records managers to participate 
in the life cycle of automated information systems and the necessity of im¬ 
proving communications and interaction among the various disciplines in¬ 
volved in electronic records management. 


Executive Summary 


1 






The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990'$ 


Summary of 
Recommendations 


The following is a summary of the recommendations of the conference. This 
summary takes the recommendations of individual groups, combines those 
that are related, and groups them by category 

Recommendations relating specifically to the management of 
electronic records. 

1. Integrate records management considerations and procedures 

throughout the information system life cycle. 

a. Incorporate records management considerations into the 
“Model Framework for Management Control Over 
Automated Information Systems” prepared jointly by the 
President’s Council on Management Improvement and the 
President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

b. Keep the expanded model current and promote its use. 

c. Ensure that electronic information systems are created in such 
a way as to make it possible to meet requirements for crea¬ 
tion, maintenance, and disposition of electronic records. 

d. Include considerations about collection and dissemination of in¬ 
formation in systems design. 

e. Promote the incorporation of records management considera¬ 
tions into the information system life cycle. 

f. Develop opportunities for cross-training for data processing and 
records management staff and awareness training for all 
others involved in the management of electronic records. 

2. Use the technology itself to improve the management of electronic 

records. 

a. Develop and implement model systems that “embed” records 
management activities (indexing, storing, disposition, and 
determining FOIA and Privacy Act status) in processes 
through which individual documents are created, main¬ 
tained, and used. 


2 


Summary of Recommendations 





The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


b. Fund the development of model expert system (artificial intel¬ 
ligence) to assist in determining whether a document is a 
record, how it should be filed, disposed of, released under 
the FOIA, etc. 

3. Clarify legal issues that affect the management and use of electronic 
records. 

a. Complete development of guidelines on the use of electronic in¬ 
formation as evidence. 

b. Develop guidelines on the confidentiality, integrity, and legality 
of electronic records. 

4. Increase funding: With the support of other agencies, NARA should re¬ 
quest funding to convert permanent records to archivally acceptable 
media after transfer to the National Archives. 

5. Information dissemination: Agencies should submit inventories of 
electronic records and information products to GPO, NARA, and NTIS. 

Recommendations relating to records management and information 
resources management (IRM) in general. 

1. Include in the Paperwork Reduction Act additional information relating 
to agency responsibilities for the creation, maintenance, and ap¬ 
propriate disposition of adequate and proper documentation of the ac¬ 
tivities of the Federal Government. 

2. Focus on IRM as a management process to support the accomplishment 
of agency objectives. 

3. Direct agencies to include records management in their IRM reviews. 

4. Educate inspectors general and other auditors on documentation require¬ 
ments and records management laws and regulations so that those re¬ 
quirements will be addressed whenever agency programs are reviewed. 

5. Develop a program to make all employees aware of their responsibility to 
create and maintain adequate and proper documentation of the 
policies and activities of the Federal Government. 

6. Review, consolidate where appropriate, and simplify all regulations and 
guidance relating to records and information management. 

7. Expand on records management policy and program requirements in 
OMB Circular A-130. 


Summary of Recommendations 


3 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Recommendations relating to the overall management environment in 
the Federal Government. 

1. Determine and articulate an appropriate balance between productivity 
and efficiency and quality and service in the definition of program ob¬ 
jectives, determination of approaches, and evaluation of performance. 

2. Work with the President’s Council on Management Improvement to in¬ 
fluence appropriate Administration officials and members of the Legis¬ 
lative Branch to strengthen management’s commitment to quality. 

3. Ensure that an integrated approach to information management is in¬ 
cluded in all program planning processes. 

4. Advocate quality in program delivery and records management by: 

a. addressing interagency management groups, 

b. issuing appropriate regulations, 

c. participating in management conferences, and 

d. writing for appropriate publications. 

5. Improve internal (agency) incentives for compliance with established in¬ 
formation resources management policies and procedures by: 

a. gaining management support 

b. demonstrating direct, program-related benefits, 

c. rewarding co-operation and success, and 

d. penalizing noncompliance. 

6. Identify methods of integrating the current budget process, program 
planning techniques, and IRM management procedures to fully sup¬ 
port the accomplishment of Administration and agency objectives. 


4 


Summary of Recommendations 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Conference Report 


In June 1989 the Office of Records Administration of the National Archives 
and Records Administration (NARA) organized a conference entitled 
“Electronic Records: A Strategic Plan for the 1990’s,” (to be called in this 
report “the conference”). The conference was held at the Tidewater Inn, in 
Easton, MD, June 21-23, 1989. This report summarizes the background of 
the conference, the issues discussed, and resulting recommendations. 

Electronic records can be considered one of the foremost challenges facing 
the information management community today. There are many reasons for 
this: 


• Electronic records are often not thought of as records and are not 
subjected to the same controls that are used to manage other records. 
Program managers and ADP managers are frequently not concerned 
about the record status of electronic information until their disks fill up 
and they want to start deleting information. 

• The amount of information maintained in electronic form is large and 
growing. 

• Preserving electronic records is a challenge, because they can be easily 
changed, because the media on which they are stored is fragile and 
records can be lost through poor maintenance, and because they are 
often technology-dependent. 

• Persons from many different disciplines need to be involved with the 
management of electronic records. 

• Frequently electronic records are not centrally located, but are 
dispersed throughout an organization. 

With these considerations in mind, the Office of Records Administration con¬ 
cluded that it would be productive to bring together experts from a wide 
variety of backgrounds to address the major issues in electronic records 
management and to develop recommendations for future action. 


The Planning Process 

After that decision was reached, it was necessary to determine the most ad¬ 
vantageous timing for such a meeting. Three accomplishments were neces¬ 
sary before scheduling the conference: 


Conference Report 


5 





The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


1. The preparation of revised regulations on electronic records, to be issued 
jointly by the National Archives and the General Services Administra¬ 
tion and published in the Code of Federal Regulations. These were is¬ 
sued as a proposed rule in the Federal Register on December 5, 1988. 

2. The publication by the National Archives of revisions of the General 
Records Schedules relating to electronic records. 

General Records Schedule 20, Electronic Records, applies to records in 
central data processing facilities. General Records Schedule 23, 

Records Common to Most Offices Within Agencies, has items that 
apply to records created in electronic form in office automation applica¬ 
tions. The General Records Schedules contain disposition instructions 
for records that are common to all or many agencies of the Federal 
Government. These were published in June 1988. 

3. The completion of a report on electronic recordkeeping by the National 
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). The report, entitled “The 
Effects of Electronic Recordkeeping on the Historical Record of the 
U.S. Government,” was issued in January 1989. 

With these elements in place, further planning for the conference began. A 
planning committee was assembled to work with representatives from the 
Office of Records Administration. This planning committee included senior 
policy makers representing the full range of disciplines involved in the 
management of electronic records. The members of the committee were: 

Ronald E. Brewer, Tennessee Valley Authority 

John W. Coyle, Department of the Interior 

Glenn P. Haney, Department of Agriculture 

Francis A. McDonough, General Services Administration 

Judith J. Newton, National Institute of Standards and Tbchnology 

Howard H. Raiken, Department of Energy 

Timothy Sprehe, Office of Management and Budget 

Kenneth F. Thibodeau, Director of NARA’s Center for Electronic Records 

The committee recommended that the conference’s program consist of 
general sessions and working groups. The general sessions would survey 
past and current developments in the field and assess the technological and 
managerial future. The working groups would each have an assigned topic. 
The committee also recommended speakers for the general sessions and 
leaders for the working groups. 

Another function of the planning committee was to select participants for 
the conference. The committee members suggested individuals who repre¬ 
sented a wide variety of backgrounds and areas of expertise, as well as 
many Federal agencies, the judiciary, the Congress, interested professional 
associations, and the private sector. Those invited were to be senior execu- 


6 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 199Q , s 


tives in positions to effect change in the manner electronic records were 
managed within their organizations. 

The National Archives proceeded to invite the persons named by the plan¬ 
ning committee. Sixty-three persons accepted the invitation and attended 
the conference. They included records managers, information resources 
managers, ADP managers, data administrators, attorneys, librarians, and 
archivists. A list of attendees is included as an appendix. 


General Sessions 

The speakers at the general sessions included: Don W. Wilson, the Archivist 
of the United States, who gave the welcome; Webb Castor, recently retired 
Senior Vice President of the Xerox Corporation, who gave his views on the 
technological future; and John J. Franke, Jr., formerly Assistant Secretary 
for Administration in the Department of Agriculture, who discussed the 
managerial future. 


Welcome Don W. Wilson 

In his welcome Wilson discussed the National Archives and Records Ad¬ 
ministration and its concerns with records. Records are important to both in¬ 
dividuals and institutions. The National Archives is not just a building, it is 
a body of records—the records of the most important institution in our 
society. These records provide evidence of the operations of the Government 
and are one of the basic means for ensuring responsible and responsive 
Government. In addition, the National Archives provides research and refer¬ 
ence sources on many aspects of society for scholars, journalists, and others. 

Another important responsibility of the National Archives is working with 
agencies’ records administration programs—establishing controls over the 
entire life cycle of records. The National Archives helps agencies ensure that 
necessary records are created, that these records remain available as long 
as needed, that permanently valuable records are preserved, and that other 
records are destroyed when they are no longer useful. Basic elements of the 
National Archives’records administration program are'issuing regulations 
and guidance, providing training, evaluating agency programs, and apprais¬ 
ing records to determine their appropriate disposition. This last activity is 
particularly important because no Federal records may be destroyed 
without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. 

The National Archives decided to sponsor the Electronic Records Conference 
because of the need to improve the management of records in electronic in¬ 
formation systems to ensure their availability to future generations. The Na¬ 
tional Archives relies upon those who are involved on a daily basis with 


Conference Report 


7 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


electronic systems to ensure that agency programs and activities are ade¬ 
quately documented and that the record is preserved. Finally, the National 
Archives is ready to commit resources to refining and implementing the 
recommendations of the Electronic Records Conference. 


The Technological Future Webb Castor 

In his remarks Castor discussed the Information Age. He said that technol¬ 
ogy should be viewed as an enabler rather than the driving force. The future 
holds dramatic changes and enormous opportunities. There are three keys 
to the technological future: anticipation, innovation, and quality. But the 
transition is difficult. The three possible reactions to change include rejec¬ 
tion, failure to see contradictory information, or adaptation fit. There are 
three sources of innovation—the very young, older career changers, and 
tinkerers. 

Quality is another key element in technological change. It is important to 
serve your customers and to make a quality product. 

In the United States two-thirds of the research and development dollar is 
spent on new products and one-third on production systems. In Japan this is 
reversed. Quality is costly for the first few years, and financial systems that 
are too bottom-line in orientation can discourage a commitment to quality. 

The predominant occupational setting of the work force has changed from 
agriculture, through manufacturing, to service-oriented industries, with 
more than half of these last being information services. Now people do 
things but do not make things, yet most businesses still operate in a 
manufacturing-oriented model. In the workplace there were 24 million new 
jobs created from 1975 to 1985. While the revenues of Fortune 500 com¬ 
panies continued to increase, their employment was down. Eighty-five per¬ 
cent of the new jobs are in companies with 100 or fewer employees. 

The amount of information is growing rapidly and its “shelf life” becoming 
briefer and briefer. In the next 20 years there will be 10,000 times as much 
information as there is today—as if every piece of paper now in existence 
were to become an encyclopedia. Vast amounts of information must be fil¬ 
tered to produce action. In the future we can anticipate intelligent work sta¬ 
tions that will check for relevant information. There is a convergence of 
three activities into one area—movies, computers, and publishing. So we 
must consider how to consolidate and deliver information. We must use dif¬ 
ferent, variable media to increase our learning speed and conserve room in 
our heads by hierarchical orientation. 

Today 90 percent of the information in a company is proprietary, but some¬ 
times automation for one purpose fulfills a more important purpose that 
was not anticipated. So, there is a shift to external, nonproprietary informa¬ 
tion. There is democratization of the information. 


8 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 199Q , s 


In the 1960’s different companies were involved with different aspects of in¬ 
formation resources management and a few companies dominated—IBM 
with data processing, AT&T with communications, and Xerox with docu¬ 
ment processing. Today there is a convergence of these and there are many 
other players. 

In industry today, 95 percent of information is stored on paper, 4 percent on 
microfilm, and 1 percent on electronic media. There are two islands—data 
and documents—these islands need to be linked. Organizations are 
governed by their information relationships. This results in four technical 
implications for the future: connectivity, communications, collaboration, 
and cognition. 

An Arthur B. Little study of customers’ information resources management 
needs found these to be: integration of data bases; improved connectivity 
and compatibility; improved cost/performance; and strategic and operational 
relevance including productivity improvement and a competitive advantage. 

Comparing paper to electronic records, it may be seen that the “paperless of¬ 
fice” is far off because of the advantages of paper, including durability, 
readability, editability, and portability, as well as its status as a universal in¬ 
formation exchange medium. Customers need both paper and electronic 
records for various uses. Connecting the corporate information base means 
dealing with paper, electronic images, and the electronic content. Technol¬ 
ogy is developing to allow this connectivity. 

Finally, what to look for in the technological future is: scanning—images, 
OCR, and intelligent; global networks; electronic mail as the primary 
vehicle for communications; groupware and collaborative software; intel¬ 
ligent work stations; intelligent user interfaces; data/document/information 
bases with nonlinear access; intelligent storage and retrieval; multifunction 
devices; distributed functions; multimedia online; hypermedia; dynamic 
documents; and increased man-machine symbiosis. 


The Managerial Future John J. Franke, Jr. 

In his address Franke spoke about the need to not only try to determine 
what the future will be like, but also to prepare for it. He spoke about what 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is doing to shape the future. 

The USDA calls its vision of the future its “Strategic Framework.” The title 
of the document containing this strategic framework is “The Future of Infor¬ 
mation Resources Management in the United States Department of Agricul¬ 
ture.” It describes USDA’s view of IRM, between now and 1995. There are 
four major areas of concern: improving Government management and 
productivity; improving management of information; improving information 
delivery to the public; and increasing effective use of technology. 


Conference Report 


9 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Improved Government management and productivity. In the area of im¬ 
proved Government management and productivity USDA seeks a future of: 
improved delivery of program services; Department- wide sharing of ad¬ 
ministrative and program data; and commitment to streamlined methods of 
delivering services to the public. Accomplishing these goals requires the in¬ 
volvement of the staff. It is essential to have strategies for attracting, hiring, 
training, motivating, and retaining talented employees. 

Individuals can focus on quality and productivity improvement, using steps 
identified in the President’s Council on Management Improvement’s 1988 
Annual Report to the President. These are: emphasize customer service; 
train employees in problem-solving skills and seek their participation in im¬ 
proving current operations; reward employees for quality and productivity 
achievements; set quality and productivity goals for, and require account¬ 
ability of, managers in meeting these goals; and develop clear quality and 
productivity measures to track progress. 

Improved management of information. Improvements in the way we manage 
information are needed because we are an information-based society; but, be¬ 
cause of technology, we face information overload. 

In the electronic environment there is concern about the creation and preser¬ 
vation of and access to records. Some individuals have suggested that if we 
want to ensure that important records are kept, we should keep everything, 
since storage costs continue to decrease. However, indiscriminate retention 
would cause serious problems with retrieval. 

Program managers must understand that because technology allows us to 
create, manipulate, and maintain so much information, we have to be even 
more diligent in applying good information management practices. Those 
levying information collection requirements must question the 
requirements’ necessity, usefulness, cost, and collection techniques. 

Improved information delivery to the public. There is pressure for increased 
access to Government information. Improvements in technology make it pos¬ 
sible to allow this increased access, but allowing non-Federal personnel to 
access program information raises policy issues related to security, privacy, 
and proprietary considerations. By 1995, USDA expects to see changes in 
the way it provides information to the public, including online access, voice- 
activated systems for delivery and collection of information, electronic 
generation and distribution of published reports, and direct electronic inter¬ 
face between the agency and organizations that receive USDA grants. 

Increased effectiveness in the use of technology. Even before 1995 arrives, 
technology will no longer be a barrier in processing and sharing information 
in USDA. It will also not hinder the establishment of effective data inter¬ 
faces with external organizations. 


10 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


The following developments will aid in more effectively using technology: 
direct links between mainframe computer centers, which will provide for 
work force leveling and backup capability; implementation of Open Systems 
Interconnection (OSI), which will allow improved internal information 
delivery; electronic generation and distribution of reports; employees work¬ 
ing at home under certain circumstances because of the flexibility provided 
by microcomputers and network technologies; increased use of source-data 
automation, including electronic capture and transmission of administrative 
data, smart card applications for benefit delivery, hand-held data entry 
devices, and voice- activated devices; and implementation of information 
storage and retrieval systems using state-of-the-art technology, such as opti¬ 
cal disks. 

Making the vision a reality. Accomplishing any vision requires effectively im¬ 
proving program delivery. Some long- and short-term actions at USDA in¬ 
clude: development of a centralized philosophy for management of 
information resources; integration of the various facets of computing technol¬ 
ogy; utilization of more sophisticated telecommunications systems; and en¬ 
suring the availability of qualified IRM specialists, trained end users, and 
resources to acquire needed technology to implement IRM programs. 

It is necessary to reward and recognize people in organizations who get 
things started. It is also necessary to take risks and to be open to new ap¬ 
proaches and innovative ways of doing things. 

At the close of his address, Mr. Franke invited the conference participants to 
develop recommendations relating to the management of electronic records 
that would be appropriate for him to submit to the President’s Council on 
Management Improvement (PCMI) for action. 


The Working Groups 

Each of the six working groups at the Electronic Records Conference was 
made up of approximately 10 participants. Each group dealt with a separate 
topic. The groups were as follows: 

1. Organizational and Individual Responsibilities, led by Belkis Leong- 
Hong of the Department of Defense. 

2. Corporate Information Management — Mission Information Systems, led 
by Barbara A. Cerny of the Department of Energy. 

3. Managing Electronic Records in the Office Environment, led by Alan 
Proctor of the Federal Trade Commission. 


Conference Report 


11 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


4. Legal and Security Issues, led by Jules S. Romagnoli of the State Depart¬ 
ment. 

5. Records Management and the Design and Implementation of Electronic 
Information Systems, led by Wallace O. Keene of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

6. Collection and Dissemination of Information, led by Fred B. Wood, Office 
of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. 


Working Group 1: Organizational and 
Individual Responsibilities 

Scope of Concern: 

Recordkeeping and records management are functions that are essential to 
every government organization and to each individual within those organiza¬ 
tions. The longstanding problems facing recordkeeping and records manage¬ 
ment have been aggravated by electronic recordkeeping. 

Issues: 

1. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) does not specifically spell out agen¬ 
cy responsibilities for records management. Since the Act is being 
reauthorized, there is an opportunity to correct this. 

2. Records management is not a “sexy” issue. Top management, middle 
management, and working staffs are not aware of their records 
management responsibilities and are not motivated to take them 
seriously. 

3. Individual program managers are interested in records management 
only to the extent that it directly affects their immediate program 
operations and mission accomplishments. But there are others, 
beyond the program manager, who would benefit from more extensive 
records management. For example, auditors, top managers who are in¬ 
terested in establishing accountability, Congress, the public, and fu¬ 
ture generations. How are the interests of these people beyond the 
immediate program manager accommodated in records management 
programs? 

4. The General Services Administration (GSA), the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA), and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) share responsibility for issuing records management 
regulations. However, each has its own issuance system. Agencies 
should be able to go to one place for records management regulations. 


12 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


5. The definition of “machine-readable record” needs to be clarified. For ex¬ 
ample, it is not clear what in a database is a record, what should be 
saved, how often, etc. Similarly, Computer-Aided Systems Engineering 
(CASE) and Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems raise questions. 

6. Records management considerations are often not included in automated 
information systems (AIS). 

Recommendations: 

1. As part of the comment process on the Paperwork Reduction Act, suggest 
language clarifying agency responsibilities related to records manage¬ 
ment. The reauthorization of the Act should explicitly state that 
records management is part of Information Resources Management 
(IRM) and specify Federal agency responsibilities related to records 
management. Agencies should support this change when they are 
given the opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation. Once 

the PRA is changed, agency heads should issue memorandums to their 
organizations to emphasize the importance of records management. 

2. Develop an education/awareness program for records management. In¬ 
clude the following; 

• For top and middle management, develop a video of horror and 
success stories. Use this as a motivational tool. 

• For top and middle management, include records management 
training in courses such as those taught by the Office of Personnel 
Management at Kings Point and Denver. 

• For all employees, provide records management training in 
orientation programs when people first enter on duty and 
periodically thereafter. 

• For staff involved in IRM-related specialties such as computer 
systems analysts, ADP procurement staff, legal staff involved with 
the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts, and others, provide 
detailed cross-training in records management. 

• For records management staff, provide cross-training in other IRM 
disciplines. 

NARA should take the lead in developing the basic course materials and 
should form interagency working groups to develop interest in using 
such materials in agency training programs. OPM should include 
records management in their courses. Agency IRM’s should sponsor 
courses for IRM specialists and records managers to provide cross¬ 
training. 


Conference Report 


13 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 199Q , s 


3. Build in mechanisms to involve other stakeholders beyond individual pro¬ 
gram managers in records management, thus expanding the base of 
support for records management. Include making reviews of records 
management a specific topic of: Agency IRM reviews, GSAIRM 
reviews, Office of Inspector General reviews, and General Accounting 
Office reviews. Ask the President’s Council on Management Improve¬ 
ment (PCMI) and the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 
(PCIE) to direct agencies to include records management in overall 
review programs. 

4. Place all records management regulations in GSA’s Federal Information 
Resources Management Regulations (FIRMR). Ask the PCMI to recom¬ 
mend to GSA, OMB, and NARA that they centralize regulations in the 
FIRMR. The three agencies would need to get together to decide 
whether and how to implement this change. If the three agencies dis¬ 
agree, they should be required to justify why to the PCMI. If there is 
agreement, implementation would follow. 

5. NARA should develop a clarification of the definition of machine- 
readable records, solicit comments from agencies, and give the new 
definition to GSA for publication in the FIRMR. NARA could solicit 
input from agencies on what their questions are related to defining 
machine-readable records and use this as a starting point for develop¬ 
ing clarification. 

6. Establish procedures to involve records managers in the design of 
automated information systems (AIS). Include requirements for 
records managers’ involvement in agency directives on system develop¬ 
ment. Use existing AIS review and oversight mechanisms to ensure 
that records management requirements have been addressed. Assign 
responsibility for creation, maintenance, and disposition of electronic 
records during the AIS design phase. 


Working Group 2: Corporate Information 
Management 


Scope of Concern: 

Records management concerns are particularly crucial in the area of mis¬ 
sion information systems—those systems that directly support the mission 
of the agency. 


14 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990 , s 


Issues: 

1. Technology is causing the management of records to be isolated from 
their creation. It used to be that anyone could deal with records be¬ 
cause they were on paper, now with the multitude of hardware and 
software applications, average personnel cannot manage them. 

2. There has been a great deal of emphasis on productivity and efficiency in 
government in recent years with, perhaps not enough emphasis on 
quality and service. 

Recommendations: 

1. Balance the emphasis on productivity and efficiency with an emphasis on 
quality and service. 

• Work through the PCMI to influence OMB and Congress. 

• Develop a task group from this conference to gain Congressional 
support. 

• Use the “Management by Objectives” process to achieve integration 
of information management with program objectives. 

• Brief interagency committees to establish broad-based support for 
the quality and service orientation. 

• Develop a FIRMR Bulletin. 

• Gain visibility for the new focus in the trade press and professional 
journals to stimulate dialogue. 

2. Establish an interagency task group to consolidate and integrate ap¬ 
propriate directives relating to information management. 

• Identify relevant directives. 

• Simplify, consolidate, and integrate. 

• Develop a strategy to maintain the consolidated approach. 

3. Revise the call for IRM plans to include discussion of how all aspects of 
information management (e.g., records management, printing, publica¬ 
tions, mail management) support the mission of the agency. 

4. Review the impact of the budget process on IRM. 

• Obtain input and ideas from other Government agencies on the 
impact of the budget process on planning. 

• Initiate discussion with OMB to review consequences of the current 
budget structure. 


Conference Report 


15 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990*5 


5. Develop guidelines to assist agencies in implementing the new focus on 
quality and service. Identify the payoffs that will accrue from informa¬ 
tion management and the new focus. 


Working Group 3: Managing Electronic 
Records in the Office Environment 

Scope of concern: 

Electronic records are created daily by employees as they go about their 
work in the office using a variety of computer systems. Because there is lit¬ 
tle centralized control over the creation and use of these records a major con¬ 
cern is ensuring that these records are available as long as necessary. 

Issues: 

1. The NARA standard for transfer of electronic information places unrealis¬ 
tic burdens on agencies. This tends to discourage agency transfer of 
permanent records in electronic form. 

2. Internal agency standards are often not sufficiently defined to facilitate 
consistently effective storage of and subsequent access to electronic 
records. This leads to inconsistent, “idiosyncratic” storage of informa¬ 
tion. 

3. Documents may be duplicated in or omitted from agency storage systems 
(including individual, work-group, and agency systems) due to a 
variety of factors including: 

• the absence of procedures that define and structure a system for 
storing, capturing, and retrieving corporate information; 

• the lack of effective incentives (positive and negative) to encourage 
compliance with established regulations or requirements; and 

• the lack of individual knowledge of responsibilities and procedures 
(which is becoming increasingly important as systems are 
becoming more decentralized). 

4. Loss of software necessary to interpret and display documents in their 
original format. (Note that problems increase with the shift from text 
to database-type information.) 

5. Fragmentation of responsibility for developing and supporting Govern¬ 
ment-wide records management policies and procedures among 
NARA, GSA, OMB, GAO, etc. has led to delay in development and im¬ 
plementation of critical policy and inaction on the part of all agencies. 


16 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


6. Records management programs should be made an integral element of 
an overall information management program as an extension of the 
data administration function. 

Recommendations: 

1. The oversight agencies should support legislative action needed to 
eliminate the current fragmentation of records management and IRM 
responsibilities among GSA, NARA, and OMB. 

2. NARA should request, and the other oversight agencies should support, 
funding to enable NARA to acquire permanent records that are not in 
an archival medium. 

3. Agencies should develop standard file storage and retrieval systems to 
which authors can send electronic copies of documents for storage and 
adopt procedures and provide sufficient training to assure consistent 
usage. 

4. OPM, GSA, NARA, and individual agencies should develop opportunities 
for cross-training for data processing and records management staff 
members, and awareness-training at the work-group level. 

5. Government oversight agencies, including OMB, GSA, NARA, and NIST, 
should get together to fund development of expert systems that Would 
assist in, if not automate, the processes of determining whether a docu¬ 
ment is a record, how it should be filed, disposed of, and released 
under the Freedom of Information Act. A preliminary step would be to 
set up a prototype electronic system through agencies which could in¬ 
ventory and manage their records and electronically transmit records 
schedules to NARA. 

6. Agencies should improve internal incentives for compliance with estab¬ 
lished IRM policies and procedures by gaining support of senior pro¬ 
gram managers, demonstrating direct benefits, rewarding cooperation, 
and penalizing noncompliance. 

7. Agencies should develop and implement systems that “embed” records 
management activities (indexing, storing, determining FOIA and 
Privacy Act status, and retention and disposition) in processes 
through which individual documents are created. Such a system could 
also initiate author review and deletion of preliminary ‘Versions” of 
final documents (intermediate drafts or notes) not appropriate for 
retention. 


Conference Report 


17 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Working Group 4: Legal and Security Issues 

Scope of concern: 

Electronic records pose a number of special challenges in the areas of deter¬ 
mining their legal status and what changes need to be made in laws and 
regulations to make them applicable to electronic records. In addition, infor¬ 
mation recorded in electronic form can be particularly vulnerable and this 
requires attention to security. 

Issues: 

1. There is a need for a broad policy on computer security. 

2. There need to be standards for implementation of technical means (e.g. 
cryptography or trusted operating systems) to ensure confidentiality, 
integrity, and legal sufficiency of electronic records. 

3. Managerial training concerning legal and security issues brought about 
by changing information technologies should include coverage of 
electronic records. 

4. The guidelines issued by the Department of the Justice on the admis¬ 
sibility of electronic records as evidence have only been issued in draft 
form. These need to be finalized. 

5. There is a need for more extensive guidelines for release of electronic 
records under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. 

Recommendations: 

1. OMB should update Circular A-130, Appendix III, to incorporate require¬ 
ments of the Computer Security Act of 1987. The PCMI should develop 
“guidelines” to assist agencies in implementing the requirements. 

2. The National Security Agency and the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology should develop standards for technical means to en¬ 
sure the confidentiality, integrity, and legal sufficiency of electronic 
records. 

3. The Office of Personnel Management should incorporate material on 
electronic records into managerial training concerning legal and 
security issues brought about by changing information technologies. 

4. The Department of Justice should finalize and systematically update 
guidelines on the use of electronic information as evidence. 


18 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 199Q's 


5. The Department of Justice should develop and maintain guidelines for 
release of electronically stored information under the existing access 
statutes. 


Working Group 5: Records Management and 
the Design and Implementation ofElectronic 
Information Systems 

Scope of Concern: 

It is necessary to effectively and efficiently provide for records management 
in the design and implementation of electronic information systems. The 
group defined “records” as information that is recorded on any medium that 
documents the activities of the Government and is deemed appropriate for 
preservation for some period of time. 

Issues: 

1. The pending reauthorization of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 
presents an immediate target of opportunity to provide Federal 
managers with a mandate to broaden their perspective when design¬ 
ing and implementing electronic information systems. This action 
would also have the very positive result of causing a revision to OMB 
Circular A-130, which is the implementing guidance for Federal agen¬ 
cies. 

2. OMB issued the “Model Framework for Control Over Automated Informa¬ 
tion System” in 1988 as a guideline to enable managers to easily un¬ 
derstand what is required to incorporate controls into the life cycle 
management of their systems. A modification of this methodology to 
reflect the needs of the records management community would seem 

to be a reasonable first step towards involving the records manage¬ 
ment considerations in the design of automated information systems, 
however no organization has been assigned to “update and maintain” 
the. methodology. 

If the central agencies (NARA, GSA, OMB, and NIST) are able to desig¬ 
nate someone to lead this effort, a major advance will have been taken 
toward assuring that a broad range of information- related require¬ 
ments can be understood and, as a consequence, met. The revised 
methodological guideline could be issued as perhaps a revision to Cir¬ 
cular A-130, a change to the FIRMR, or as an NIST series 500 publica¬ 
tion. 


Conference Report 


19 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


3. The distribution of draft materials would not only go to all Federal agen¬ 
cies, but care would also have to be taken to ensure that it gets to the 
people responsible for all relevant functions. Sending the material 

only to the designated Senior Official for IRM will not necessarily get 
it reviewed by the FOIA official, who is frequently in the Public Affairs 
Office, or the Internal Controls officer who is frequently in Finance, or 
the Privacy Act official who is frequently in Personnel. 

4. There are several impediments to undertaking the development effort. 

• There may be a certain amount of apathy on the part of the central 
agencies. This may be overcome if there is success in modifying the 
PRA to require a more holistic approach, such as the one now being 
recommended. 

• There may be a lack of resources to undertake the activity. This 
might be overcome by providing some examples of what happens 
when the requirements have to be addressed later, when the 
system is operational rather than in the system design. 

• Once the document is developed there may be impediments in 
getting it used, such as general resistance to change, 
organizational barriers (since every IRM organization in the 
Government is different), competing priorities for attention, and 
lack of resources. 

5. There is a need to market the results to those who would be required to 
implement the requirements. 

Recommendations: 

1. Seize the opportunity at hand with the pending reauthorization of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act to require the Federal Government to take a 
more holistic approach to the design and implementation of its 
electronic information systems with the view that a better integration 
of records management and other needs will be met. 

2. Encourage the central agencies to give someone the job of maintaining a 
System Development Life Cycle Model around which the requirements 
for records management and other needs might be brought into a com¬ 
mon, easily understood focus. 

3. NARA take the lead and seek GSA support in identifying the records 
management-related system development life cycle framework, using 
the OMB Model Framework as a guideline. 

4. Concurrently develop a marketing program to sell the now integrated 
view to those who must implement it. 


20 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Working Group 6: Information Collection and 
Dissemination 

Scope of Concern: 

What are the appropriate roles of the Government and the private sector in 

collection and dissemination? 

Issues: 

1. In the area of Government contracts for collection or creation of informa¬ 
tion, there is a question of whether the contractor should be allowed to 
profit from marketing information collected at public expense, or 
should information that the taxpayers paid for be defined as in the 
public domain and made available like any other information the 
Government has? 

2. Is the Government responsible for disseminating information or merely 
for making it available? Tb what extent does private business have a 
right to profit from the dissemination of public information? 

3. What are the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies in the dissemi¬ 
nation of information in electronic form? 

4. How can we pay for the information technology related to information col¬ 
lection, storage, dissemination, and preservation? 

Recommendations: 

1. Federal information dissemination should involve a balancing of public 
and private sector roles. The Government has the responsibility to en¬ 
sure that information collected or developed at taxpayers’ expense, 
regardless of format, is available to the public and, where appropriate, 
is included in dissemination and retention programs. 

2. At a minimum, the private sector has the opportunity and should be en¬ 
couraged to resell or enhance as determined by market forces, publicly 
available Government information. For information dissemination and 
collection, any Government agency contracting with the private sector 
should ensure equitable public access and a level, competitive playing 
field for vendors. 

3. The Government has the highest responsibility to ensure that informa¬ 
tion about Government policies, procedures, decisions, regulatory 
proceedings, and other activities is available to the public without 
hindrance of any sort. 


Conference Report 


21 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


4. The general policy directions in the OMB June 15, 1989, Advance Notice 
of Federal Information Dissemination Policy and HR 2381, the 
proposed Information Policy Act of 1989, are commendable and should 
be farther developed. However, a number of key areas identified below 
are inadequately covered and should be strengthened. 

5. The Depository Library Program (DLP) must include electronic informa¬ 
tion formats, to protect the integrity of this avenue of public access. 

6. The primary responsibility for Federal information dissemination should 
rest with the mission agencies. However, agencies should submit lists 

of electronic information products to the Government Printing Office 
(GPO), the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), and NARA. 

7. GPO should ensure that the depository libraries are advised of electronic 
information products and select, subject to availability of funds, items 
desired for inclusion in the DLP. 

8. GPO should include items in the GPO sales program judged to have addi¬ 
tional demand not being met by the agencies or where agencies desire 

to have GPO serve as the primary sales outlet. 

9. GPO, NTIS, and NARA should collaborate on the compilation of a 
Government-wide directory of information products based on in¬ 
dividual directories prepared by agencies, and should develop a plan 
for an integrated, common directory format. 

10. The Paperwork Reduction Act should be amended to further strengthen 
due process and periodic oversight requirements, including periodic 
rather than permanent reauthorization by Congress. 

11. Agency automation planning should explicitly include collection, dis¬ 
semination, and retention, and should identify ways to fund such ac¬ 
tivities, including productivity improvements, cost sharing with 
private sector (used very cautiously to ensure equitable access and 
competitive equity), more cost-effective media, and user charges. 

12. User charges for Federal information dissemination or access should 
not exceed the agency cost of such activities, with lower or no charges 
permissible at the discretion of the agency head. 

13. The revised OMB Circular and legislation, including HR 2381 and other 
bills, should explicitly address the roles of GPO, NTIS, and NARA, 
clarify user charges, and strengthen due process. 


22 


Conference Report 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Recommendations to the 
President's Council on 
Management Improvement 


Responding to John Franke’s challenge to the conference to develop recom¬ 
mendations to be taken to the President’s Council on Management Improve¬ 
ment, a subcommittee met and developed the following items, which were 
submitted to Mr. Franke on August 15,1989. 

1. Position classification standard for information resources managers. 
Issue statement: 

The quality of the Federal work force is dependent on the Government’s 
ability to recruit, train, reward, and retain competent, energetic, and crea¬ 
tive employees. This is especially true in the field of information resources 
management. Changes in technology, as well as growth in the amount and 
complexity of information itself require professional employees who are 
knowledgeable about the broad spectrum of concerns and able to translate 
their knowledge into practical applications. The absence of a position clas¬ 
sification standard for information resources managers has hampered the 
Government’s ability to recruit and retain such individuals. 

Action requested: 

Direct the Office of Personnel Management to establish a position classifica¬ 
tion standard for information resources managers. As part of this process, 
OPM should determine which job series now otherwise classified should be¬ 
come part of the new series. In addition, there should be both professional 
and paraprofessional job titles, including grades from entry level through 
the Senior Executive Service. 

Background: 

The difficulty of recruiting and retaining personnel trained and experienced 
in information resources management has been well documented by inter¬ 
agency groups. Groups that have addressed the question include the 
General Accounting Office, interagency task groups, and the National 
Academy of Public Administration in their report, “Federal Information 
Resources Management: Bridging Vision and Action.” This report asserts 
that skills are needed in data administration, standards development, infor¬ 
mation technology management, information systems project management, 
information needs assessment, and security and telecommunications 


Recommendations to the President 7 s Council on Management Improvement 


23 





The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


management. Further, the need for individuals with these skills is intensify¬ 
ing as the Federal Government moves from the procurement of information 
technology to managing information itself. Yet the Government’s ability to 
recruit and retain individuals with these skills in competition with the 
private sector is hampered by the lack of a professional information resour¬ 
ces management position classification standard. 

In addition, as it now stands there is a great deal of division among the 
professions that are part of information resources management. There are 
many different job classifications. Some are professional and some non¬ 
professional. Each has a different grade structure. There is no cross-training 
and very little cross-communication. None of this promotes the goal of a 
work force with broad vision and flexibility. 

Discussion: 

The issue of a separate classification standard for information resources 
managers has been addressed by a number of groups. An interagency group 
under the direction of the General Services Administration examined the 
current classification of individuals working in information resources 
management disciplines and identified elements appropriate for inclusion in 
an information resources management classification standard. The Depart¬ 
ment of Defense has prepared a draft classification standard for an Informa¬ 
tion Systems Manager job series. DOD’s work combined with that of the 
interagency group should provide the Office of Personnel Management with 
a basis to pursue the establishment of a new classification standard. 

An information resources management classification standard would im¬ 
prove the Government’s ability to recruit and retain individuals educated 
and skilled in information resources management disciplines. It would 
promote flexibility in job interchange, recruiting, and rewarding individuals. 
It would establish information resources management as a profession ap¬ 
propriately recognized as critical to the successful delivery of goods and ser¬ 
vices. Most importantly, it would provide the Government with the 
personnel resources essential for improving the management of information 
in support of agency missions and administration objectives. 

2. Improve the efficiency of Federal records management programs. 
Issue statement: 

Increasingly, Federal agencies are turning to automated systems for the con¬ 
trol and monitoring of records management programs. Because all agencies 
have similar records management requirements, because this information 
will need to be shared among agencies, and because these systems are only 
now being implemented, there is a unique opportunity to avoid costly 
duplication and the problems that result when incompatible systems are 
developed to address common needs. 


24 


Recommendations to the President's Council on Management Improvement 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Action requested: 

Establish a PCMI project to identify exemplary automated records manage¬ 
ment systems and recommend a model standard system. 

Background: 

The major mechanism for managing recorded information in the Federal 
Government is the records schedule. Schedules are developed by all Federal 
agencies and are submitted to the National Archives and Records Ad¬ 
ministration (NARA) for review and approval. Schedules identify records 
and the manner and period of time they must be maintained. With the ex¬ 
ception of a few agencies, this information is currently collected, recorded, 
and maintained manually by the agencies and by NARA. Those few agen¬ 
cies which have automated the records scheduling process have realized 
numerous benefits including: the electronic transfer of information to and 
from NARA, and to and from offices throughout the agency; the generation 
of information identifying the location, arrangement, volume, access restric¬ 
tions, security requirements, and disposition of the records holdings of the 
agency; the automatic production of reports directing organizational units to 
effect disposition action (transfer to a Federal records center or agency 
storage area, destroy, transfer to the National Archives); and the production 
of management reports to evaluate and improve the manner in which the 
agency is managing its recorded information. 

These systems will substantially reduce the costs of managing recorded in¬ 
formation and will improve information available about the records holdings 
of the Federal Government, which, in turn will result in improved manage¬ 
ment controls over information. 

Discussion: 

In 1983 when the Office of Management and Budget directed that there be 
no more that one personnel and one payroll system per agency (five for the 
Department of Defense and none for agencies under 6,000 FTE) there were 
132 different personnel/payroll systems operating in the Federal govern¬ 
ment. Five years later the number had dropped to 53 and it is projected that 
there will only be 10 to 12 personnel/payroll systems operating in the 
Federal Government by the early 1990’s. 

This reduction in the number of up-to-date personnel/payroll systems was in¬ 
itiated by those who understood that the use of common data elements 
provides consistent government-wide data to evaluate operations and aid 
managerial and policy decisions, and that the economies of scale result in 
major operational efficiencies in terms of software maintenance, cost of keep¬ 
ing individual records, and improvements in the quality and timeliness of 
personnel and payroll systems. Those same benefits will result from the 
development of a standard records management information system. Such a 
standard will also permit the exchange of information between and among 


Recommendations to the President's Council on Management Improvement 


25 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


agencies, a critical requirement since information on agency records must be 
furnished to the National Archives to obtain the Archivist’s approval for the 
disposal of records. It would permit the National Archives to hold and make 
available as needed information about the records holdings of the Federal 
Government. Although currently available in paper form, the information is 
not readily accessible nor can it be manipulated to provide managers with 
the information needed for program planning purposes. The model should in¬ 
clude information on the information collection and dissemination activities 
of each agency since information collection becomes a part of the records 
holdings of the Government and dissemination products are based on and 
become a part of records systems. 

Based on the study, a set of core requirements should be developed for a 
standard records management information system. All future automation of 
records management control systems would have to meet these require¬ 
ments. 

3. Model information resources management organization. 

Issue statement: 

The integration of information management activities to achieve the goal of 
handling information as a resource in the most productive and cost effective 
manner has not happened. 

Action requested: 

Recommend a model information resources management program. 

Background: 

The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act are very clear: minimize the 
private paperwork burden and the Federal cost of information handling, 
maximize the usefulness of the information, establish uniform Federal infor¬ 
mation policies and practices, ensure that ADP and telecommunications 
technologies are obtained and used to maximum effectiveness and efficiency, 
and ensure that confidentiality is maintained in Federal information han¬ 
dling systems. To achieve these goals, the framers of the Paperwork Reduc¬ 
tion Act envisioned a management system that would bring together 
previously dispersed functions such as automated data processing, telecom¬ 
munications, office automation, information systems development, and data 
and records management under one management structure to move informa¬ 
tion management from its traditional occupation with technology to a 
serious emphasis on the content of the information itself. This management 
structure has become known as information resources management. 


26 


Recommendations to the President's Council on Management Improvement 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Discussion: 

When the concept of information resources management was conceived and 
initially implemented it was a bold new direction, based on the idea that in¬ 
formation is an important resource for government operations and must be 
managed. Unfortunately, the concept of information resources management 
as a management tool has not been thoroughly tested, largely because agen¬ 
cies have been slow to fully integrate all aspects of IRM into a single pro¬ 
gram. 

Organizational structures, assignment of responsibilities, delegations of 
authorities, and other management processes that have been or should be 
successful in advancing the integrated management of information resour¬ 
ces should be identified. A model program or successful programs (or part of 
programs) should be identified and advocated. A very selective, high 
visibility award for the information management program most closely ap¬ 
proximating the goal of integration, which is highly supportive of agency 
and administration goals, should be considered. 

4. Integrate the management of information with the management of 
information technology. 


Issue statement: 

The focus of management systems within the Federal Government over the 
last several years has been the procurement of technology. The objectives 
have been to ensure that the Government acquires technology to support its 
information handling requirements in the most cost-effective and efficient 
manner. With the emphasis on technology acquisition, insufficient regard 
has been paid to the management of the information itself. Consequently, 
significant information management processes have not been considered in 
the design, development, acquisition and implementation of information 
technology. 

Action requested: 

Direct an interagency working group to incorporate records management 
considerations into the “Model Framework for Management Control Over 
Automated Information Systems,” and to ensure that the provisions in the 
model are known to and adopted by agencies. 

Background: 

In January 1988, the PCMI and the President’s Council on Integrity and Ef¬ 
ficiency jointly published a report titled “Model Framework for Management 
Control Over Automated Information Systems.” This report acknowledged 
that managers need basic tools to provide reasonable, documentable as¬ 
surance that the information processed by automated information systems 
is accurate, complete, timely, and authorized, and that the systems are 


Recommendations to the President's Council on Management Improvement 


27 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990 , s 


secure and auditable. According to the report “Future audits and reviews by 
OMB, Inspectors General, the GAO, and others will seek evidence of com¬ 
pliance with these control requirements.” One of the control requirements is 
that “records retention procedures exist—each agency must establish proce¬ 
dures as to retention, archiving, and destruction of data files.” However, the 
authority for the requirement is the Privacy Act which has a specific applica¬ 
tion in terms of access and retention in relationship to systems containing 
personal information. The Federal Records Act which applies to all records 
of the Federal Government and includes the requirement to create and 
maintain adequate and proper documentation is not cited in the report as a 
governing directive. 

Discussion: 

Many automated information systems in the Federal Government have been 
designed, procured, and implemented without addressing some basic 
records management issues. The length of time the information is needed 
and by whom, the need for information outside the creating or maintaining 
agency, and the ability of the automated system to meet all accountability re¬ 
quirements are issues that are often overlooked. For example, the final dis¬ 
position of the information maintained in the automated system once it has 
served the agency’s purposes is frequently not considered in the design, im¬ 
plementation, and operation phases of the information system life-cycle. A 
review of system development life-cycle management documents produced 
by a number of different agencies reveals a lack of attention to records 
management concerns. As more and more information supporting basic 
agency programs is being collected, maintained, and disseminated electroni¬ 
cally the need to address these issues has intensified. The need to identify 
the length of time information must be maintained in automated systems, to 
dispose of that which is no longer needed and to preserve that which has 
long-term value, intensifies as the volume of information and the associated 
costs to maintain increases. 

Building records management considerations into existing, accepted models 
for information systems design and implementation will ensure that the 
complete life-cycle of the information, from creation/collection through final 
disposition is addressed. It will eliminate the costs to the Government of 
maintaining and managing information which is no longer needed, will en¬ 
sure that information of long-term value to the Government and the people 
its serves is maintained, and will simplify access by providing controls over 
information of long-term value. 


28 


Recommendations to the President's Council on Management Improvement 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


Summary of Progress and 
Planned Actions 


Actions Begun 

1. Position classification standard for information resources managers. 
In September 1989, the President’s Council on Management Improvement 
requested that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) consider the pos¬ 
sibility of establishing a position classification standard for information 
resources managers. OPM replied that they had already looked at this ques¬ 
tion in conjunction with the Department of Defense and the General Ser¬ 
vices Administration. Their primary efforts involved defining the kinds of 
work that would be included under such a series, what qualifications are re¬ 
quired to do the work, and what sources exist for recruiting qualified ap¬ 
plicants. Defining these factors is usually considered necessary for setting 
up a new classification series. 

OPM did not feel that these factors have been shown to be sufficiently 
definable to justify setting up a new classification standard. They pointed 
out that the General Administrative, Computer Specialist, and Communica¬ 
tions Management Series cover the types of work that OPM has been able to 
identify as proposed for inclusion in the new series. However, recognizing 
the importance to agencies of being able to recruit and retain a high quality 
work force, OPM expressed its willingness to continue to look into this mat¬ 
ter. 

2. Integrating records management into the information systems life 
cycle. 

In August 1989, the FIRMR Advisory Council considered the issue of incor¬ 
porating records considerations into the information systems life cycle plan¬ 
ning. As a result of that meeting, the General Services Administration 
(GSA) decided to devote staff time to developing a pamphlet that shows the 
records management actions to be taken at each stage in the development of 
an automated information system. The pamphlet is currently in production. 

In February 1990, Mary Ann Wallace from the National Archives and Wal¬ 
lace Keene addressed the Systems Committee of the President’s Council on 
Management Improvement on the need to update the “Model Framework for 
Management Control Over Automated Information Systems” to include 
records management considerations. The Committee decided the project 
should be undertaken as a PCMI initiative. 


Summary of Progress and Planned Actions 


29 





The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


3. Adding records management to OMB circular A-130: The 
Management of Federal Information Resources. 

The National Archives has drafted and submitted to the Office of Manage¬ 
ment and Budget an appendix to Circular A-130. OMB is considering the 
best approach to incorporating this information in A-130. 

4. Automated Records Management System 

Also in February 1990, Mary Ann Wallace addressed the Systems Commit¬ 
tee of the PCMI on the benefits to be gained from the identification of an ex¬ 
emplary automated records management system and from recommending a 
standard system. The Systems Committee saw the wisdom of avoiding the 
kind of multiplicity of systems that had occurred in other areas such as 
payroll and personnel and has adopted the project as a PCMI initiative. 

5. Evaluate electronic records management 

The National Archives is currently evaluating electronic records manage¬ 
ment in selected agencies of the Department of Transportation and the En¬ 
vironmental Protection Agency. Reports on these evaluations will be 
available in early 1991. 


Planned Actions 

The following are actions that the National Archives and Records Ad¬ 
ministration will undertake to implement the recommendations of the con¬ 
ference. 

1. Promoting the incorporation of records management into the 
automated information systems development life cycle. 

NARA staff will write articles on this subject to submit to periodicals. In 
each case the article will be focused on the particular concerns of the 
audience of that publication. 

NARA will develop a poster that promotes this concept as part of its records 
management poster series. 

NARA will develop several briefings on the subject that can be presented to 
relevant audiences. One briefing, reviewing the records management con¬ 
cerns to be considered in the system life cycle, will be aimed primarily at 
educating records managers. Another briefing will be specifically developed 
for groups who are beginning to plan an information system and will focus 
on the incorporation of archival and records management requirements. 


30 


Summary of Progress and Planned Actions 



The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


NARA will establish an interagency work group to identify and define the ar¬ 
chival and records management requirements that must be addressed in the 
design and implementation of electronic information systems. 

NARA, with the assistance of the other central agencies and operating agen¬ 
cies, will translate archival and records management concerns into ap¬ 
propriate Federal regulations and guidance on information resources and/or 
records management. NARA will periodically issue reports on how the Na¬ 
tional Archives and the Bureau of Land Management records management 
staff worked together to ensure that records management concerns were in¬ 
cluded in the planning for the Automated Land Management Records Sys¬ 
tem. 

NARA will make available a model agency directive about records manage¬ 
ment in the automated information system life cycle. 

2. Cross-training 

NARA will develop a cross-training plan for familiarizing ADP and records 
management personnel with each other’s disciplines. The cross-training 
plan will include recommended courses, suggested on-the-job training, and 
reading lists. 

NARA will develop a one-hour briefing on records management for ADP 
managers. The briefing will cover the basic concepts of records manage¬ 
ment, such as adequacy of documentation, recordkeeping requirements, and 
disposition. 

3. Pamphlet for auditors 

NARA will develop a pamphlet for auditors and Inspectors General giving 
guidelines for adding records management to the scope of their reviews. 

4. Electronic records directive 

NARA will identify or create a model agency directive on electronic records 
or the elements of such a directive and make this available to other agencies 
to use in developing their own. 


Summary of Progress and Planned Actions 


31 





























The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990 , s 


Appendix: Conference 
Participants 


John E. Anderson, National Library of Medicine 

Richard E. Barry, World Bank 

Jane A. Benoit, Department of Agriculture 

Rose Marie Berezowsky, Bureau of Land Management 

Jane Bortnick, Congressional Research Service 

Ronald E. Brewer, Tennessee Valley Authority 

Tbbi Brimsek, Special Libraries Association 

Webb Castor, Xerox Corporation 

Barbara A. Cemy, Department of Energy 

John W. Chandler, Department of Transportation 

John Chapman, Government Printing Office 

Lawrence S. Cohan, General Services Administration 

Katherine V. Coram, National Archives and Records Administration 

John W. Coyle, Department of the Interior 

Dan Cragg, Office of the Secretary of Defense 

Michael J. Curro, General Accounting Office 

Mary H. Davis, Forest Service 

Richard M. Davis, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
John Dinneen, Department of Labor 

Charles M. Dollar, National Archives and Records Administration 
Daniel J. Drake, Logistics Management Institute 
Constance D. Drew, Department of the Treasury 

Robert E. Dugan, National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 
Frank B. Evans, National Archives and Records Administration 
Michael Farber, Roy F. Weston, Inc. 

John J. Franke, Jr., Department of Agriculture 

Michael G. Garland, Bureau of the Census 

J. Patrick Heelen, Bureau of the Census 

Nadine M. Highland, Department of Energy 

Thomas C. Hnatowski, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Wallace O. Keene, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Elijah Kelly, Jr., Department of State 

Belkis Leong-Hong, Department of Defense 

Mary Catherine Malin, Department of State 

Richard A. Marcus, National Archives and Records Administration 

Cathy McAuliffe, Social Security Administration 

Francis A. McDonough, General Services Administration 

Marilyn McLennan, Department of Commerce 

Constance McLindon, National Science Foundation 

John H. McMillan, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations 

James W. Moore, National Archives and Records Administration 

David R. Mullins, General Services Administration 

Burt Newlin, Department of Defense 

Judith J. Newton, National Institute of Standards and Technology 


Appendix: Conference Participants 


33 





The Management of Electronic Records in the 1990's 


William Porter, Navy Publishing and Printing Office 

William H. Price, Department of State 

Alan Proctor, Federal Trade Commission 

Linda J. Querec, Public Health Service 

Thomas E. Reddin, Food and Drug Administration 

Edward Roback, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Jules S. Romagnoli, Department of State 

Kenneth F. Rossman, National Archives and Records Administration 

R. Stephen Scott, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Harold Segal, Office of Personnel Management 

Alan Shelton, Immigration and Naturalization Service 

J. Timothy Sprehe, Office of Management and Budget 

Kenneth Thibodeau, National Archives and Records Administration 

William A. Walker, Department of the Army 

Mary Ann Wallace, National Archives and Records Administration 

John H. Weiner, Department of Energy 

Lisa Westerback, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

Benjamin L. White, Department of Energy 

Don W. Wilson, National Archives and Records Administration 

Richard A. Wire, National Archives and Records Administration 

Fred B. Wood, Office of Ttechnology Assessment 

Phillip Zellers, National Agricultural Statistics Service 

Raymond C. Zimmermann, Department of the Air Force 


34 


Appendix: Conference Participants 









































































0 ^OV * 
* JO .A * 
/[feP v ^ V Yy * 
❖ o * 
v\cr 




r ^ .' Mg 

* OV * >i i H 

V ^ Yv 
❖ -0 




O s 



* X 


VV 


X s 


x*. 



v-g XV 

>4 

^ ° 


* x^ « 


^ ° 


YV 

X^r 






’* . t* « 

: ^b 4 ° 

° 4- 0 * ' 

• X o„ *<• 


0 ^ 

’ ->V 


❖ _o 




^ a x * 
* * 



o% ^ * 

° \<T 


X J'p 

* <c? Yy *>' 

_ .X JX Y, *, s s A . . 

■,, /*a^ /> " 

*+& ?41X. •'bv*’ . 



<$ Yv. 

'A V>v , 


O ^ ^ £ 

°z ? 

- >4 * 


^ > * 



X s Yv * 

* <? %. '. 


& # • l »r sV ■ • * l »r i°<‘ * *>>y 





Y *‘ XXLXX '' .XX «, . ... ~ 0 

X* \*W' $% 'W/ 3*+ t»; I°-g. 

' XsA" 

° “| 4 ‘ YY* :M P o ^ *y>Y* Y><£ 

*«jaa»° °oWw* oMw; x^Yv *M3#f <&'*< 

<> ™-3ixf *. •V V 1 X.•*> <X v 0 > A %Wir * <V' Y ° M/zy^sV 0 -*. jv *>Y ^ AXA ^ v v* ° XgXV 0 > Xy 

c • • >Y -yv: • v 6 .‘°” * • s >^’ '“>°.<‘v\‘' • 5 >^* ^^v o, "> 6 - 



\/®V.'* 




»^a* r *|a«V Y« 

u^^p. J .ljii o .vV^ k 





^ 0 * l ’ ??^xX' “*> 6 .^X 4 • * 


% a 0 - 

v-o 4 ® 

VX t»g?“;;l,’'” 


X”°%\''" 1 *^V Vo^‘”* r /V >0 ' ,<5 ’Vt’-'”°'.\1'*" ‘x°^ 

■ |J\^A| p X 6 /& y gC. <^ v ^CV y X> * r\^/u ,X*fX x> 


v°x. 


x-'^ 0 ' 

.tfiffir «> *70 


W v V°X * 


I w .■ 

K^/ °^ 


«P> <?y 

* 


XX 

•» V, - ^3 

.4 <X 


; 

^ XX ^ 


I l 



b" * * S /V i,, %v° * ** o^c° kg vV * * l,s /v° ° " • * 1 ^* u ^v° • ^ 4 0 ^ c 

^ -1*^ i? JStfTZ* 2% -V . C; . * r^SNVy. -T o X» fj ^ r^<\». J* c) X" .♦ Of* 7^, X X/ Cj .' 

\vfHk ^ .» O* 

K» o-v" 

:..•• / ■» , 0 _> 


1 OT ’ 1 * ^CT 

XXX«X- o, * 



>*# :®m\\& ?w; %* 

> ♦ 

<A 4 



X \a 


i0$\\<^;0&\ %■<? :§&k\\J y 

X s % ,|f^« aV4 z .JM; <XJj* °'W® * X s ^ 

■• /-^* Yv <», ^ ^ > ° wW ♦ <X ’gK ' s ^J[[wk ^ 'V’ ^ ^ v v* x »> ^ ^ 

<p^>% * * ^;;S^A^yo: • • ^^ 

^b 4 Yx :^.' Y.X Yx A ^ s 



❖ o 

.1 ft O,,^ JT 
^ c c. o Qa _X 





, ?> 0 4 * 

• 4 X 



a°; .., v , *»«'«’\<t. „;v^Yn *.,’ v* ; " o, YY. »>°° 5 ..; v 

' « s X ' / X , V ^ f? 5, '% CV Xp Xk ❖» < -v , V X c> o, Y Qa jP X < . 



O K 


O T^s aT ^ 
O ^ o 

« XA o 

^ y ° 


^ ' <A X <r' 

* ^ X^ 01 


b *- . -./v«. ‘V c o»««;v - * ">\* “*«V° *'*V%.-.. V ; * * ; ix 

X X^ * OgtfTZu ^ X/ ry «■ XY) X® ^ •» nL cH • Tkbcv Y Hd X -?• 



* X 

o X 0 X ** 

I o 

" x" 3 ^ o m « ^ £ X’-Y. o WMM: ,4> J 

* *' " ,^/V 0 ,li /cO«c 

•*'VYoAo'»;Y ov X;m:tY^ • 
v°4 '«»o ^o*_ :^P: *«»; xx * 


Y ’ - >o:* 7 ’ ->Y” ^vY?“-.'YYr •*?<;•» *:>Y • • ^'« 5 >y * 


o, ^ 


# X 


^ x> 













